skip banner Southern Forest Resource Assessment    Draft Report: Comments

Search this site:


Home > Draft Report > Comments   

Previous PageNext Page

Summarized Comments and Author Responses: SOCIO-6

Comment no. 52:

In Section 6.2, 4.6 states "Depending on the type and intensity of recreation use, the type and fragility of a forest site, and the type and level of site management, recreation in forested ecosystems impacts soil, water, vegetation and animal life." We agree that recreation can have some adverse impacts on forested ecosystems. However, there must be a comparison of the damage that industrial forestry has on the very same types of ecosystems. For example, the reduction in vegetative cover and accompanying erosion from foot or horse travel should be compared with damage from heavy logging equipment. We also have concerns about the section on nontimber forest products. We agree there can be impacts on ecosystems from gathering nontimber forest products. But wouldn't most agree that gathering persimmons has much less of an impact on wild species than destroying the entire persimmon tree? Please include a side-by-side comparison of the cumulative effects of recreation vs clearcut logging. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

Industrial damage cannot be addressed in this chapter. Additionally, there is little known data available to enable a side-by-side comparison of recreation vs. clearcutting effects. Recreation effects are so varied depending on the recreational activities involved, that development of the data needed to make the suggested comparison would be very, very complex. -- Final Report

Comment no. 51:

Section 6.2 states: "Many, and possibly most, people would argue that recreation and other nontimber uses are the most important and highest valued uses of forests. The value of these uses is evident in the high demands for recreation opportunities in the region." Opportunity for further synthesis of ideas. If this is the case, why then don't we see any really accurate studies of the long term impacts of industrial forestry on these values? -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

This comment does not apply to this chapter. It applies generally to the SFRA. -- Final Report

Comment no. 41:

Despite their importance in the region, the report has little mention of hunting and fishing, and no discussion of programs or revenues from licenses and leases - major activities in the south. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

Hunting is only marginally more popular in the South than in the rest of the Nation. It involves only about 9 percent of the population during only a few weeks of the year. Fishing in forested settings (not including reservoirs, the ocean, farm ponds and other non-forest waters) is similarly modest in size of participant population. As much discussion of hunting and fishing is offered as any other activities. -- Final Report

Comment no. 40:

Much of the presented data lacks credibility and should therefore be further explained and supported or excluded. For example: "26% of residents in the south participate in gathering a wide variety of nontimber forest products…. The number of people viewing and photographing fish almost doubled between 1995 and 2000." -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

There was a text error in the key findings and the percentage participating in natural product gathering was corrected to 31 percent. Somehow the national percentage got picked up. On the viewing fish comment, the percentage change was +98 percent, an increase of 1.98 times what it was in 1995. Other statistics were checked and we were unable to validate that "Much of the presented data lacks credibility ....", therefore, we had to assume some marginal level of credibility and decided to keep things as they are. -- Final Report

Comment no. 39:

Numerous conclusions are based on little or no data. Despite the lack of quantitative data the authors assert that "obviously" nontimber forest products is an important use of the South's forest. Likewise, despite the fact that the NORSIS does not distinguish between forest and nonforest settings, the authors assume that most of the outdoor recreation opportunities are in forest settings. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

The assertions made in the report about NTFP and forest-non-forest settings seem quite reasonable. They are not entirely without data, however. At least the authors were honest in stating where there is and where there is not adequate data. -- Final Report

Comment no. 38:

Analysis is based primarily on the southwide responses from a NSRE. These data appear to be exaggerated; at the very least, a discussion of associated errors or data weaknesses should be included. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

Some of this information was included in earlier versions, but space limitations necessitated omission. NSRE is the United States Federal National Recreation Survey, begun in 1960. It is highly credible and widely accepted as the authoritative source for recreation participaiton data. -- Final Report

Comment no. 5:

The chapter should be edited with special attention to including only facts that can be backed up with peer-reviewed current scientific studies. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

All data and secondary sources have been carefully screened for credibility and most have been used in published papers previously. -- Final Report

Comment no. 4:

Under section 4.4, Knowledge Gaps: we recommend adding a bullet on recreation. We stress the need to inventory southern forest trails by length and type of use, given the lack of current data. In addition, we suggest evaluating local, public support for trails, both by use of trails and by the volunteers that build and maintain trails. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

A sentence on Page 11 was added suggesting that states maintain such an inventory and the condition of trails. This is a good suggestion and should be pursued. -- Final Report

Comment no. 3:

Impacts of recreation congestion on forest ecosystems: This discussion is very limited and fails to acknowledge the ecological and environmental effects of different types of recreation, particularly motorized recreational use. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

Space limitations precluded expanded discussions. In addition, little research and systematic documentation of motorized impacts has been done, especially across the variety of soil, vegetative and fauna types across the South. Little more can be done in this chapter. -- Final Report

Comment no. 2:

We suggest including a general discussion of current and projected recreation management plans and tools to address issues such as competition, user conflicts, and recreation impacts. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

This was beyond the scope of this chapter and its length limitations. There is definitely a need for cross-government and public-private collaboration to address declining per capita supply in the South. -- Final Report

Comment no. 1:

Recreation receives limited attention despite its growing significance. We urge you to include a broader evaluation of recreation in the final SFRA. Section 3.1.4 states that "there appears to be a limited capacity to expand forest-based recreation in the South". The American Hiking Society believes the opportunities do exist to disperse recreation in a more balanced manner and relieve congestion through key trail linkages and connections between both public and private lands. -- Draft Report

Response by Ken Cordell and Michael Tarrant:

This recommendation applies to the SFRA in general and thus cannot be adequately addressed in this chapter. -- Final Report

Previous PageNext Page


webmaster: John M. Pye

created: 4-OCT-2002
modified: 08-Dec-2013